Then you have the possibility the Ai flips out at a player, begins to speak gibberish and tries to influence the end user in ways some might think or believe is unethical, and for whatever reason that player goes screw this I can find better ( or worse), then what?
The former can happen, though not normally with modern generative models.
The latter, not so much. They can't "try to influence the user", because they have no intent. Can they be poked into spewing out inappropriate things? Absolutely. It's one of the many problems of the unbelievably huge training sets needed. But if you're not trying, it's pretty unlikely as I understand it, unless somebody is one of those people who finds acknowledging the existence of gay people to be unacceptable brainwashing or the like.
Additionally, if we are disqualifying DMs from DMing because they might flip out, start acting unethically, and begin just spewing nonsense, I know a whole lot of humans who would be disqualified from DMing. I bet many of us here have horror stories of a DM throwing a little hissy fit and causing the game to go pear shaped.
Which, again, brings the conversation back to a simple reality - AI DMs are probably never going to be as good as a good human DM, but the past five decades have shown that players are pretty darn tolerant of bad DMs if the alternative is no DM. Quite frankly, I think a lot of people would probably find the “oops, our AI DM threw a fit and went crazy” a whole lot more enjoyable and forgivable than “oops, our human DM is kind of a terrible person.”
I remember when people were training ChatGPT 2 to run a campaign. The funniest thing I find with ChatGPT 2 through 4 is that it does laughable parsing when things get nuanced.
I generally find campaigns to be more entertaining when they're nuanced... but I also find ChatGPT highly entertaining when nuance goes completely over its head (so to type).
Sure. A trained digital DM will be aligned more towards DMing, but it'll still flail hilariously with player creativity. Its usefulness will be limited to superficial processing of campaign mechanics.
Flail is not a typo. It's pretty much what ChatGPT does when I get down to things that are very specific. DALL-E 3 is even more hilarious the more specific I try to be. Neither are intended to be creativity replacers. Prompt mashers? Sure. That can help people think of something in different ways the same way that Tarot can help people think of problems in different ways, but that reduces them to mere tools, toys, and gimmicks.
I also remember ChatGPT 2 claiming that it could only be as unbiased as its training data and could make no assurances that the people who provided the data weren't being biased. ChatGPT 4 straight up claims it is unbiased—a disturbing development.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Then you have the possibility the Ai flips out at a player, begins to speak gibberish and tries to influence the end user in ways some might think or believe is unethical, and for whatever reason that player goes screw this I can find better ( or worse), then what?
The former can happen, though not normally with modern generative models.
The latter, not so much. They can't "try to influence the user", because they have no intent. Can they be poked into spewing out inappropriate things? Absolutely. It's one of the many problems of the unbelievably huge training sets needed. But if you're not trying, it's pretty unlikely as I understand it, unless somebody is one of those people who finds acknowledging the existence of gay people to be unacceptable brainwashing or the like.
Additionally, if we are disqualifying DMs from DMing because they might flip out, start acting unethically, and begin just spewing nonsense, I know a whole lot of humans who would be disqualified from DMing. I bet many of us here have horror stories of a DM throwing a little hissy fit and causing the game to go pear shaped.
Which, again, brings the conversation back to a simple reality - AI DMs are probably never going to be as good as a good human DM, but the past five decades have shown that players are pretty darn tolerant of bad DMs if the alternative is no DM. Quite frankly, I think a lot of people would probably find the “oops, our AI DM threw a fit and went crazy” a whole lot more enjoyable and forgivable than “oops, our human DM is kind of a terrible person.”
It’s not about dismissing the fact that there are always rotten apples in bushels, it’s about if such a system does become implemented and such an issue becomes relevant, we are all just supposed to go “Oh well, no harm no foul” and continue on like it’s nothing? ( a human GM/DM would be pulled aside, have a quick word that would address the issue, and go from there. Digital GM/DM, reboot and bury the issue as ‘Technical difficulties’ and user misuse? )
Sounds like a quick way to get in really deep hot water by excuses and passing the blame while attempting to half ass a solution.
IMHO, if C.C. had a lick of sense, he’d put stock in investments that welcomed and supported GM/DM development and support, rather then keep tossing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Computer DMs have been around for more than fifty years -- Zork dates to 1977, Rogue dates to 1980. I would not be at all surprised by generative AI being used for cRPGs (possibly including a D&D-based cRPG), though video game AI is actually surprisingly primitive. However, people aren't going to call them "AI DMs", they're going to call them "cRPGs".
Computer DMs have been around for more than fifty years -- Zork dates to 1977, Rogue dates to 1980. I would not be at all surprised by generative AI being used for cRPGs (possibly including a D&D-based cRPG), though video game AI is actually surprisingly primitive. However, people aren't going to call them "AI DMs", they're going to call them "cRPGs".
Actually it be better classed as a “ARPG” rather than a “cRPG”, as it’s the DM ( artificial or not ) that has to deterministically evaluate the situation and make a judgement based on past, present, and future events that might influence ( bias ) further situations that might cause what some call ‘Logic Lock’. ( as a programmer first lesson was programs do what you tell it to do, not what you wanted or expected it to do. )
In the case of D&D publicly people will try and define the system as a “Ai DM/GM”, and others will call it whatever, and ether way currently the tech just is not ready yet to be implemented, it’s still in development and getting better, but still decades away from anything that could be viable.
Someone at WoTC please tell Chris Cocks to go lay down.
In a March 1st interview with Venturebeats Cocks states he forsees a future where AI is generating content.
Absolutely not! The OGL debacle should have been a lesson in the community not putting up with nonsense. The blowback on AI tools used to touch up art in Bigby's should have been a lesson, uet here we are.
Hasbro needs to sell WoTC or Chris Vocks needs to either leave or stay out of it. He clearly is not friendly to this community.
Why is Hasbo/WoTC the one company that shouldn't be investigating the potential uses of AI? The company has to think about its investors', consumers', and employees' (current and future) interest in how AI can service them. Competitors of theirs are surely paying attention and exploring its use.
Someone at WoTC please tell Chris Cocks to go lay down.
In a March 1st interview with Venturebeats Cocks states he forsees a future where AI is generating content.
Absolutely not! The OGL debacle should have been a lesson in the community not putting up with nonsense. The blowback on AI tools used to touch up art in Bigby's should have been a lesson, uet here we are.
Hasbro needs to sell WoTC or Chris Vocks needs to either leave or stay out of it. He clearly is not friendly to this community.
Why is Hasbo/WoTC the one company that shouldn't be investigating the potential uses of AI? The company has to think about its investors', consumers', and employees' (current and future) interest in how AI can service them. Competitors of theirs are surely paying attention and exploring its use.
I’d rather be offed an Ai ASSISTANT then a bot that tries to run a game. IMHO
The arguments I hear against AI sound an awful lot like the arguments people had against past paradigm-shifting technologies like television or cars or the internet. Those arguments didn't age well. And as for "ChatGPT 4 has severe limitations as a DM," of course it does. This is the infancy of AI. The first cars couldn't outrun horses either.
No, we're not going to take a brave stand until it goes away. Because it's not going away. Anticipating how it is going to transform your industry is basically required for any company that wants to still be relevant 10 years from now. Now what that actually looks like is just a guess at this point, which is why we need to be talking about it and thinking about it. AI has at least as much potential to assist humans as it does to "replace" them. But rejecting any discourse like an old man shaking his fist at kids on his lawn is not going to help steer things in a productive direction.
Actually it be better classed as a “ARPG” rather than a “cRPG”
If you're running an rpg... on a computer... without a DM... it's a cRPG. There is literally nothing new here. Improvements in AI will just (potentially) result in better cRPGs.
It's not a direction I'd particularly recommend Wizards head into, they'd be competing in a field they don't have a lot of experience in, I'd leave it to the video game companies and licensing deals, but there's nothing inherently heinous about it.
Someone at WoTC please tell Chris Cocks to go lay down.
In a March 1st interview with Venturebeats Cocks states he forsees a future where AI is generating content.
Absolutely not! The OGL debacle should have been a lesson in the community not putting up with nonsense. The blowback on AI tools used to touch up art in Bigby's should have been a lesson, uet here we are.
Hasbro needs to sell WoTC or Chris Vocks needs to either leave or stay out of it. He clearly is not friendly to this community.
Why is Hasbo/WoTC the one company that shouldn't be investigating the potential uses of AI? The company has to think about its investors', consumers', and employees' (current and future) interest in how AI can service them. Competitors of theirs are surely paying attention and exploring its use.
Hasbro just does not have the free expendable cash to create their very own AI using D&D copy writes. But they could wait for a good one to come out and partner with them to make something they want and need.
First I would like to see a digital system for each official module or world. Something the DM can use to keep track of all of his notes. Maybe even a verbal input for those who do not want to type. Maybe a way for it to cross check and find any conflicts then remind the DM.
Someone at WoTC please tell Chris Cocks to go lay down.
In a March 1st interview with Venturebeats Cocks states he forsees a future where AI is generating content.
Absolutely not! The OGL debacle should have been a lesson in the community not putting up with nonsense. The blowback on AI tools used to touch up art in Bigby's should have been a lesson, uet here we are.
Hasbro needs to sell WoTC or Chris Vocks needs to either leave or stay out of it. He clearly is not friendly to this community.
Why is Hasbo/WoTC the one company that shouldn't be investigating the potential uses of AI? The company has to think about its investors', consumers', and employees' (current and future) interest in how AI can service them. Competitors of theirs are surely paying attention and exploring its use.
I’d rather be offed an Ai ASSISTANT then a bot that tries to run a game. IMHO
Someone at WoTC please tell Chris Cocks to go lay down.
In a March 1st interview with Venturebeats Cocks states he forsees a future where AI is generating content.
Absolutely not! The OGL debacle should have been a lesson in the community not putting up with nonsense. The blowback on AI tools used to touch up art in Bigby's should have been a lesson, uet here we are.
Hasbro needs to sell WoTC or Chris Vocks needs to either leave or stay out of it. He clearly is not friendly to this community.
Why is Hasbo/WoTC the one company that shouldn't be investigating the potential uses of AI? The company has to think about its investors', consumers', and employees' (current and future) interest in how AI can service them. Competitors of theirs are surely paying attention and exploring its use.
Hasbro just does not have the free expendable cash to create their very own AI using D&D copy writes. But they could wait for a good one to come out and partner with them to make something they want and need.
First I would like to see a digital system for each official module or world. Something the DM can use to keep track of all of his notes. Maybe even a verbal input for those who do not want to type. Maybe a way for it to cross check and find any conflicts then remind the DM.
Most companies don't; that is why they have to look at outsourcing the production and what services are available. Overall, I think there is a market for tools to help both D/GMs and players. I can rattle off about a half dozen ideas that make sense now, but I don't know if the service can provide a worth product at this time. It would more be a wish list or good objective.
The arguments I hear against AI sound an awful lot like the arguments people had against past paradigm-shifting technologies like television or cars or the internet. Those arguments didn't age well. And as for "ChatGPT 4 has severe limitations as a DM," of course it does. This is the infancy of AI. The first cars couldn't outrun horses either.
No, we're not going to take a brave stand until it goes away. Because it's not going away. Anticipating how it is going to transform your industry is basically required for any company that wants to still be relevant 10 years from now. Now what that actually looks like is just a guess at this point, which is why we need to be talking about it and thinking about it. AI has at least as much potential to assist humans as it does to "replace" them. But rejecting any discourse like an old man shaking his fist at kids on his lawn is not going to help steer things in a productive direction.
First of all, for every new technology that's an actual paradigm-shift, there are dozens that are sold as being paradigm shifts but don't actually ever amount to anything. Hyperloop, anyone? Second of all, one of the main reasons companies are trying to jump on the AI bandwagon is so that they can fire their human employees and shift to a purely automated workforce. That's not something to be celebrated. Unless you're really excited about big businesses delivering you an inferior product for less cost to themselves (but not to you).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The arguments I hear against AI sound an awful lot like the arguments people had against past paradigm-shifting technologies like television or cars or the internet.
Or Segway, or Theranos, or bitcoin...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The arguments I hear against AI sound an awful lot like the arguments people had against past paradigm-shifting technologies like television or cars or the internet. Those arguments didn't age well. And as for "ChatGPT 4 has severe limitations as a DM," of course it does. This is the infancy of AI. The first cars couldn't outrun horses either.
No, we're not going to take a brave stand until it goes away. Because it's not going away. Anticipating how it is going to transform your industry is basically required for any company that wants to still be relevant 10 years from now. Now what that actually looks like is just a guess at this point, which is why we need to be talking about it and thinking about it. AI has at least as much potential to assist humans as it does to "replace" them. But rejecting any discourse like an old man shaking his fist at kids on his lawn is not going to help steer things in a productive direction.
First of all, for every new technology that's an actual paradigm-shift, there are dozens that are sold as being paradigm shifts but don't actually ever amount to anything. Hyperloop, anyone? Second of all, one of the main reasons companies are trying to jump on the AI bandwagon is so that they can fire their human employees and shift to a purely automated workforce. That's not something to be celebrated. Unless you're really excited about big businesses delivering you an inferior product for less cost to themselves (but not to you).
The hype cycle is very reminiscent of the ones that surrounded cryptocurrency/NFTs/metaverse, with many of the exact same people and companies hopping off that train and onto this one. It's bigger because there's something there, but the people who are massively invested in making this the next big thing are not to be trusted on its potential.
Does our long history of science fiction prime us to believe that a computer that can talk like a human can think like a human? Very much so.
Is machine learning a fascinating technology that could improve a lot of things? Yes.
Is generative 'AI' the next big thing that will create shedloads of value and revolutionize creative work? It remains to be seen.
Is it going to lead to true human-like AI? No.
Is its primary use case so far putting creative workers out of a job in order to make inferior material, along with 'search' that makes things up and even more SEO junk sites clogging up the real search? Yes.
I will say I do not feel there is an ethical use for "ai", it's very nature is to be unethical. JMHO.
What's so fundamental and intrinsic to AI use that's unethical, that you can't change to make it ethical? Every criticism I've heard has been how it's used (basically copyright infringement) rather than AI per se. The only thing I can see is that artists etc might lose their jobs, but while that's a shame and I have sympathy for them, given the amount of jobs lost to automation in our lives, it'd be oddly selective to criticise AI for that.
The problem is that in a lot of ways being unethical is baked into how it works. To get a large enough sample to actually work they have to pool thousands, if not millions, of sources. Each one of those is essentially stealing someone elses work and talent. Sure you could actually make it ethical by honouring copyright but that would result in you having to pay every single creator and get them to agree, making it both too costly and too time consuming to be viable, and an awful lot of artists would say no no matter how much you offered them. Throw in as well that most of the people and companies creating AI tools seem to have a really shakey grasp of ethics and don't see anything wrong with stealing other people's work to get their algorithms to work and you'll never get an ethical AI on the current business model
He specifically mentions using only the books WOTC owns the copyright to in the AI database.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Additionally, if we are disqualifying DMs from DMing because they might flip out, start acting unethically, and begin just spewing nonsense, I know a whole lot of humans who would be disqualified from DMing. I bet many of us here have horror stories of a DM throwing a little hissy fit and causing the game to go pear shaped.
Which, again, brings the conversation back to a simple reality - AI DMs are probably never going to be as good as a good human DM, but the past five decades have shown that players are pretty darn tolerant of bad DMs if the alternative is no DM. Quite frankly, I think a lot of people would probably find the “oops, our AI DM threw a fit and went crazy” a whole lot more enjoyable and forgivable than “oops, our human DM is kind of a terrible person.”
I remember when people were training ChatGPT 2 to run a campaign. The funniest thing I find with ChatGPT 2 through 4 is that it does laughable parsing when things get nuanced.
I generally find campaigns to be more entertaining when they're nuanced... but I also find ChatGPT highly entertaining when nuance goes completely over its head (so to type).
Sure. A trained digital DM will be aligned more towards DMing, but it'll still flail hilariously with player creativity. Its usefulness will be limited to superficial processing of campaign mechanics.
Flail is not a typo. It's pretty much what ChatGPT does when I get down to things that are very specific. DALL-E 3 is even more hilarious the more specific I try to be. Neither are intended to be creativity replacers. Prompt mashers? Sure. That can help people think of something in different ways the same way that Tarot can help people think of problems in different ways, but that reduces them to mere tools, toys, and gimmicks.
I also remember ChatGPT 2 claiming that it could only be as unbiased as its training data and could make no assurances that the people who provided the data weren't being biased. ChatGPT 4 straight up claims it is unbiased—a disturbing development.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
It’s not about dismissing the fact that there are always rotten apples in bushels, it’s about if such a system does become implemented and such an issue becomes relevant, we are all just supposed to go “Oh well, no harm no foul” and continue on like it’s nothing? ( a human GM/DM would be pulled aside, have a quick word that would address the issue, and go from there. Digital GM/DM, reboot and bury the issue as ‘Technical difficulties’ and user misuse? )
Sounds like a quick way to get in really deep hot water by excuses and passing the blame while attempting to half ass a solution.
IMHO, if C.C. had a lick of sense, he’d put stock in investments that welcomed and supported GM/DM development and support, rather then keep tossing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Computer DMs have been around for more than fifty years -- Zork dates to 1977, Rogue dates to 1980. I would not be at all surprised by generative AI being used for cRPGs (possibly including a D&D-based cRPG), though video game AI is actually surprisingly primitive. However, people aren't going to call them "AI DMs", they're going to call them "cRPGs".
Actually it be better classed as a “ARPG” rather than a “cRPG”, as it’s the DM ( artificial or not ) that has to deterministically evaluate the situation and make a judgement based on past, present, and future events that might influence ( bias ) further situations that might cause what some call ‘Logic Lock’. ( as a programmer first lesson was programs do what you tell it to do, not what you wanted or expected it to do. )
In the case of D&D publicly people will try and define the system as a “Ai DM/GM”, and others will call it whatever, and ether way currently the tech just is not ready yet to be implemented, it’s still in development and getting better, but still decades away from anything that could be viable.
How is this not central to a horror movie? ;-)
Why is Hasbo/WoTC the one company that shouldn't be investigating the potential uses of AI? The company has to think about its investors', consumers', and employees' (current and future) interest in how AI can service them. Competitors of theirs are surely paying attention and exploring its use.
I’d rather be offed an Ai ASSISTANT then a bot that tries to run a game. IMHO
I would use that if I could retrieve data from dead hard drives!
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
The arguments I hear against AI sound an awful lot like the arguments people had against past paradigm-shifting technologies like television or cars or the internet. Those arguments didn't age well. And as for "ChatGPT 4 has severe limitations as a DM," of course it does. This is the infancy of AI. The first cars couldn't outrun horses either.
No, we're not going to take a brave stand until it goes away. Because it's not going away. Anticipating how it is going to transform your industry is basically required for any company that wants to still be relevant 10 years from now. Now what that actually looks like is just a guess at this point, which is why we need to be talking about it and thinking about it. AI has at least as much potential to assist humans as it does to "replace" them. But rejecting any discourse like an old man shaking his fist at kids on his lawn is not going to help steer things in a productive direction.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
If you're running an rpg... on a computer... without a DM... it's a cRPG. There is literally nothing new here. Improvements in AI will just (potentially) result in better cRPGs.
It's not a direction I'd particularly recommend Wizards head into, they'd be competing in a field they don't have a lot of experience in, I'd leave it to the video game companies and licensing deals, but there's nothing inherently heinous about it.
Hasbro just does not have the free expendable cash to create their very own AI using D&D copy writes. But they could wait for a good one to come out and partner with them to make something they want and need.
First I would like to see a digital system for each official module or world. Something the DM can use to keep track of all of his notes. Maybe even a verbal input for those who do not want to type. Maybe a way for it to cross check and find any conflicts then remind the DM.
No disagreement here. Sounds like a good idea.
Most companies don't; that is why they have to look at outsourcing the production and what services are available. Overall, I think there is a market for tools to help both D/GMs and players. I can rattle off about a half dozen ideas that make sense now, but I don't know if the service can provide a worth product at this time. It would more be a wish list or good objective.
First of all, for every new technology that's an actual paradigm-shift, there are dozens that are sold as being paradigm shifts but don't actually ever amount to anything. Hyperloop, anyone? Second of all, one of the main reasons companies are trying to jump on the AI bandwagon is so that they can fire their human employees and shift to a purely automated workforce. That's not something to be celebrated. Unless you're really excited about big businesses delivering you an inferior product for less cost to themselves (but not to you).
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Or Segway, or Theranos, or bitcoin...
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Nah, "this is stupid/looks like a scam" is different from "this is scary".
The hype cycle is very reminiscent of the ones that surrounded cryptocurrency/NFTs/metaverse, with many of the exact same people and companies hopping off that train and onto this one. It's bigger because there's something there, but the people who are massively invested in making this the next big thing are not to be trusted on its potential.
Does our long history of science fiction prime us to believe that a computer that can talk like a human can think like a human? Very much so.
Is machine learning a fascinating technology that could improve a lot of things? Yes.
Is generative 'AI' the next big thing that will create shedloads of value and revolutionize creative work? It remains to be seen.
Is it going to lead to true human-like AI? No.
Is its primary use case so far putting creative workers out of a job in order to make inferior material, along with 'search' that makes things up and even more SEO junk sites clogging up the real search? Yes.
There's only one suitable TTRPG for AI tools. Paranoia.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
He specifically mentions using only the books WOTC owns the copyright to in the AI database.